For a class on organizational communication, we had an assignment to write about a recent topic and how it pertains to the material that we covered. I've been watching the Musk-Twitter fiasco with pretty great interest since it started back in April, so chose it as my topic. I had quite a bit of fun with this paper, so wanted to put it here. Also, events are still developing, so everything written below was as of 11/6/2022.
Musk and Twitter: A Conflict
April 2022 saw the start of a tumultuous transition of power for Twitter. In the previous few years, the social media platform had repeatedly come under scrutiny for its attempts at content moderation. Elon Musk was among those expressing dissatisfaction, tweeting “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?” on March 25, 2022, following it up with “The consequences of this poll will be important. Please vote carefully,” an hour later.
Events rapidly developed afterwards: April 9, 2022, he was announced to be the largest individual shareholder. When this was revealed, Twitter, which needed to fight the bad publicity, nominated Musk to the board. Limits on stock ownership led him to decline the position, instead offering to purchase the social media platform outright for $54.20 per share, or $43 billion, well in excess the of $37 billion price on the market (Hawkins & Pierce, 2022). Apparently, he rather quickly regretted that decision, as his subsequent actions showed.
The main conflict began to rapidly unfold in early July. First, Musk accused Twitter of falsifying information regarding the number of “bots”, or non-human accounts and his lawyers stated that Twitter was refusing to provide information for an independent assessment (Korn, 2022). Since the ad revenue for the company depends on the number of human users, this was claimed as a reason to break off the deal. However, Twitter claimed that this was untrue, and that Musk was acting in bad faith, leading to a lawsuit. Musk responded in kind, countersuing the company just three weeks later, basing his complaint on the allegedly misrepresented bot counts (Nakajima et al., 2022). In an unexpected turn of events, the former head of security for Twitter testified before Congress that among other flawed practices at the company, Twitter intentionally used misleading estimates for counting bots, which appeared to strengthen Musk’s case (Hawkins & Pierce, 2022).
The situation only got messier as the October 17th court date approached. Musk was set to be deposed, which he put off for as long as possible. Then, just days before the deposition, Musk once again offered the original deal, contingent on Twitter ending its lawsuit. Although it was not dropped, the case was pushed back by a week and a half to provide time to complete the deal (Hawkins & Pierce, 2022). One day before the new trial date, the transfer was completed. On October 27, 2022, Elon Musk became the owner.
This was an example of many organizational communication concepts that have been discussed throughout the course. The story begins with a decision-making process, the topic of Chapter 8 in the Miller textbook. Elon Musk’s thought process leading up to the offer was a big decision, which he, apparently, decided to allow the public to influence. As outlined above, the whole process was embroiled in conflict between the two parties, or the content of Chapter 9. Internally to Twitter, this represented a significant change both in culture and leadership, directly relating to Chapter 10. And the connection to the course material culminates in Chapter 11, the emotional aspect. Musk appears to have initiated this process because he was unhappy with the platform, and now employees could be harmed emotionally to an even greater extent, with the company firing both the CEO and CFO, along with over 3,700 of its 7,500 employees (Peters, 2022).
This situation offers a wide array of possible analyses. However, the overarching conflict between Musk and Twitter is the most important part of this scenario and will be the center of analysis. According to the course textbook, conflict is defined by three main points: incompatible goals, interdependence, and interaction (Miller, 2015).
Per Miller, the first of the “three I’s”, is incompatible goals (2015). Each party is interested in benefitting itself, and conflict, as is the case in this acquisition, can stem from interfering objectives. In the case of Twitter’s board, their main priority is to maximize shareholder returns. Elon Musk can have several goals – publicly, his stated goal is to ensure free speech. However, there is evidence that his own financial interests are affecting his decision-making as well. His first attempts to break off the deal happened after he got access to Twitter’s detailed financial information. The company’s losses would only be compounded by the debt that Musk had to take on to complete the purchase, so this likely played a role in the conflict (Brandom, 2022). Furthermore, Musk’s publicly stated reason for breaking off the deal is the number of bots. Although it is not overt, this is an admission of his financial interests- revenue on the platform comes from showing ads to human users. By declaring the bot count underreported, Musk is stating that the ad revenue will be limited (Nakajima et al., 2022).
The second “i”, as outlined by Miller, is interdependence. The incompatible goals need not result in conflict if the parties don’t cross paths (Miller, 2015). Both Musk and Twitter are heavily reliant on each other. Their relationship has gone back for many years. The billionaire has, on many occasions, used the platform for announcements that directly pertain to his businesses. His involvement was such, that in an opinion piece published in 2017, five years prior to his purchase offer, he was called the “most important person on Twitter”, ranked even higher than the then-president Donald Trump (Williams, 2017). Even his own finances are directly affected by his tweets – in May 2020, his tweet about Tesla being overvalued led to a ten percent drop in share prices, and since much of his net worth is tied up in the company’s stock, it cost him about $3 billion (2020 Deutche Welle). Twitter also has needed Elon Musk for many years. As of April 2022, Musk had the eighth highest number of followers out of any account on the platform (Dixon, 2022). Popular figures like him drive engagement, and therefore users and ad revenue for the company. His tweets on any topic create substantial pools of replies, and he responds to the public’s comments, drawing even more attention (Williams, 2021). The dependence only increased after the initial purchase announcement. Musk’s hesitation and attempt to pull out of the deal that he offered had, per Twitter’s ensuing lawsuit, contributed to a drop in revenue due to the uncertainty surrounding the purchase (Hawkins & Pierce, 2022).
Finally, the third “i” is interaction. Miller explains that it is through communication that conflict is both set up and resolved (2015). Since this process was largely public, the communication between Musk and Twitter attracted attention. Through this communication Musk had initially proposed his offer, then rescinded it. As it later emerged during the lead up to trial, Musk also had many personal exchanges via text messages with other influential figures, including Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, who pushed for the takeover, Oracle founder Larry Ellison and technology investor Jason Calacanis who discussed funding, and popular podcaster Joe Rogan(Hawkins & Pierce, 2022). These exchanges were crucial influences in Musk’s decision to make the purchase.
Now, with the purchase finalized, it is possible to apply the theory that organizational conflict has distinct stages. The first, latent conflict, sets the scene for the event as the incompatibility and interdependence become apparent (Barton, 2022). As applied to this situation, it is the culmination of the last couple years of Musk’s constant use of the platform. Musk’s need for Twitter to publicize his ideas and Twitter’s need for the engagement he drove were the interdependence, while his displeasure with content moderation was incompatibility. The second phase, perceived conflict, comes when at least one of the parties involved begins feeling the disagreement growing (Barton, 2022). The tweets that initially polled the public whether or not “Twitter rigorously adheres to this [free speech] principle” indicate that he noticed his own displeasure and was considering acting on it (Musk, 2022). Felt conflict, is when the parties involved think of the ways that they will deal with it, while the manifest stage is when those ideas are enacted (Barton, 2022). This portion proved cyclical in the Musk-Twitter dealings. First, the felt stage came during the initial purchase offer and acceptance – Musk decided that since he was unhappy with the present form of moderation, it would be best for him to bring change, while the Twitter board saw it as an acceptable solution to their incompatibility. However, when Musk reneged on his offer, the process returned to the felt stage. Both parties were once again at odds, leading to the lawsuit and countersuit about the veracity of bot counts and the financial loses that Musk’s actions were causing. Finally, the conflict aftermath has begun. In the lecture, this stage is defined as the consequences of the conflict (Barton, 2022). The primary consequence was that the platform is now privately owned by Elon Musk. However, the consequences are still emerging - since the purchase was completed, Musk has been quick to enact change, and the world has been responding in real time. From thousands of job cuts, to changes in the C-suite, Twitter’s employees have been facing continuous internal turmoil (Hawkins & Pierce, 2022). The company’s finances have also been affected – new programs such as the eight-dollar monthly verification subscription is introducing a new program will affect how users see advertiser content and how their publications will be prioritized (Clark & Peters, 2022). Furthermore, major companies are pulling advertising from the platform, citing uncertainty regarding changes to content moderation policies (Nolan, 2022).
In the discussion of this conflict, it is also important to consider the parties’ styles. There are five major approaches. In the first, avoidance, there is low concern for the interests of either side. Accommodation and collaboration both promote high concern for the interests of others, but the first has low self-concern and bows to the will of others, while the latter has a much higher degree, trying to fulfil all the needs of everyone involved. The most centered approach is compromise, which sees both parties sacrificing some of their benefits, to at least meet some of everyone’s needs. Lastly, a competitive approach sees all parties pushing their own needs at the costs of the others involved (Miller, 2015). Throughout this ordeal, both Twitter and Musk have shown to only care for their own needs in an all-or-nothing mentality. After the initial deal seemed to fall through, both parties resorted to lawsuits, publicly accusing each other of acting in bad faith. These competitive approaches forced the need for the judge to help settle the case. According to Miller, third party conflict resolution is necessary when those involved in a disagreement cannot resolve it on their own, necessitating either a mediator, one who facilitates discussion but cannot make decisions, or an arbiter, who hears the two sides and settles the case as they see appropriate (2015). Since the cases were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the third party would have been the Honorable Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, who would have been acting as an arbiter to make a binding resolution (Lopatto, 2022).
The Musk-Twitter situation is still an ongoing situation, but the conflict appears to have reached the final stage – aftermath. It clearly outlined all the stages that had been discussed both in the textbook and in class lecture, making it a useful discussion tool in analyzing conflict as an aspect of organizational communication due to the clearly outlined stages and presence of the “three i’s”.
References
Barton, R. (2022). Chapter Nine: Conflict Management Processes. Lecture.
Brandom, R. (2022, November 2). Why Elon Musk is so desperate for twitter to make money. The Verge. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/2/23437120/elon-musk-twitter-product-subscription-verification-revenue-debt-finance
Clark, M., & Peters, J. (2022, November 1). Elon Musk will let you pay $8 to be a verified 'lord' on Twitter. The Verge. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/1/23435092/elon-musk-twitter-blue-verification-cost-ads-search
Deutsche Welle. (2020, May 2). Tesla shares fall as Musk says company's stock is overvalued – DW – 05/02/2020. dw.com. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.dw.com/en/tesla-shares-tumble-as-musk-says-companys-stock-is-overvalued/a-53308317
Dixon, S. (2022, July 27). Twitter: Most-followed accounts worldwide 2022. Statista. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/273172/twitter-accounts-with-the-most-followers-worldwide/
Hawkins, A. J., & Pierce, D. (2022, April 16). Elon Musk vs. Twitter: All the news about one of the biggest, messiest tech deals ever. The Verge. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.theverge.com/23026874/elon-musk-twitter-buyout-news-updates
Korn, J. (2022, October 28). Elon Musk's bumpy road to owning Twitter: A timeline | CNN business. CNN. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/17/tech/twitter-elon-musk-timeline/index.html
Lopatto, E. (2022, July 19). Elon Musk's twitter takeover trial set to start in October. The Verge. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/19/23270119/elon-musk-twitter-trial-october
Miller, K. (2015). Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Musk, E. [@elonmusk]. (2022, March 25). Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle? [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507259709224632344.
Musk, E. [@elonmusk]. (2022, March 25). The consequences of this poll will be important. Please vote carefully. [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507272763597373461
Nakajima, K., Yang, M., & Bond, S. (2022, October 28). Elon Musk has finally bought Twitter: A timeline of the twists and turns. NPR. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.npr.org/2022/10/27/1131378869/twitter-elon-musk-timeline
Nolan, B. (2022, November 4). Companies are suspending ads on Twitter after Elon Musk's takeover. here's the full list of brands pressing pause on advertising. Business Insider. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-ads-twitter-advertising-elon-musks-takeover-2022-11?op=1
Peters, J. (2022, November 3). Elon Musk could cut half of Twitter's workforce. The Verge. Retrieved November 5, 2022, from https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/2/23437926/elon-musk-twitter-layoffs-cuts-half-workforce
Williams, B. (2017, May 19). Why Elon Musk, not Donald Trump, is the most important person on Twitter. Mashable. Retrieved November 6, 2022, from https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-influence
No comments:
Post a Comment